PCK as conceptual framework

Conceptual frameworks guiding this study:

The social model of disability and inclusive design
Pedagogical content knowledge
Pedagogy as planned, enacted and experienced

Pedagogical Content Knowledge and Its Importance for Teachers

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), a concept first introduced by Lee Shulman (1986), represents the intersection of a teacher’s understanding of subject matter and their knowledge of how to teach that subject effectively. It transcends mere content knowledge and generic pedagogical strategies, focusing instead on the nuanced ways in which subject matter is transformed for teaching. PCK encompasses an understanding of what makes specific topics difficult or easy to learn, the preconceptions and misconceptions learners commonly bring to the classroom, and the most effective strategies for helping students grasp complex concepts (Shulman, 1987).

Critically, PCK serves as the foundation of effective teaching, bridging the gap between theory and classroom practice. Without this integrated knowledge, even teachers with strong subject expertise may struggle to foster deep understanding in their students. For example, Ball, Thames, and Phelps (2008) argue that effective mathematics instruction requires more than procedural competence; it demands the ability to unpack mathematical ideas in ways that are pedagogically accessible. This distinction is especially important in light of evidence that subject-matter expertise alone is insufficient for promoting student achievement (Darling-Hammond, 2006).

Moreover, PCK is not static but evolves through experience and reflective practice. Grossman (1990) posits that it is developed over time as teachers engage with both the subject and their students, constantly adapting their instructional approaches. Contemporary research has further elaborated PCK into various components, such as knowledge of learners, curriculum, and assessment (Koehler & Mishra, 2009), often within the broader framework of Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK). These developments acknowledge the complex, situated nature of teaching and the importance of contextual factors in shaping effective pedagogy.

Despite its centrality, PCK has been critiqued for being difficult to define and measure reliably. Its boundaries with general pedagogical knowledge and subject-matter knowledge are often blurred, leading to conceptual ambiguity (Depaepe, Verschaffel, & Kelchtermans, 2013). Furthermore, some scholars argue that the model underemphasizes the sociocultural dimensions of teaching, such as equity, student agency, and the role of identity in learning (Ladson-Billings, 1995).

Nevertheless, the importance of PCK for teacher education remains undisputed. Effective teacher preparation programs explicitly aim to cultivate this knowledge through pedagogical reasoning, subject-specific methods, and classroom-based inquiry. In doing so, they acknowledge that good teaching requires not only knowing what to teach, but knowing how, when, and why to teach it in particular ways to particular learners.

In conclusion, Pedagogical Content Knowledge is a critical construct for understanding and improving teaching practice. It provides a conceptual and practical foundation for the professional knowledge base of teachers, emphasizing the need for an integrated, context-sensitive approach to instruction. While debates persist around its definition and scope, its value in informing teacher preparation, curriculum development, and instructional quality is widely recognized in educational research.

References

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554

Darling-Hammond, L. (2006). Powerful teacher education: Lessons from exemplary programs. Jossey-Bass.

Depaepe, F., Verschaffel, L., & Kelchtermans, G. (2013). Pedagogical content knowledge: A systematic review of the way in which the concept has pervaded mathematics educational research. Teaching and Teacher Education, 34, 12–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2013.03.001

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. Teachers College Press.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK)? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9(1), 60–70.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

Shulman, L. S. (1987). Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the New Reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

VERSION 2

Pedagogical Content Knowledge as a Conceptual Framework for Educational Research

Pedagogical Content Knowledge (PCK), introduced by Shulman (1986), describes the distinctive professional understanding that integrates subject matter knowledge with pedagogical strategies tailored to specific learners. It moves beyond knowing what to teach (content knowledge) and how to teach in general (pedagogical knowledge), focusing instead on the transformation of content into forms accessible and meaningful to students. As such, PCK has been foundational in conceptualising what it means to teach well across subject disciplines.

Critically, the value of PCK extends beyond the classroom, positioning it as a powerful and appropriate conceptual framework for educational research. Firstly, PCK enables researchers to examine teaching not merely as a technical practice, but as a complex, situated, and knowledge-rich activity. It provides a lens through which to interrogate the specific knowledge teachers draw upon in planning, delivering, and reflecting on instruction. This is particularly useful in qualitative, practice-based research where understanding the how and why of teaching decisions is central (Ball, Thames, & Phelps, 2008).

PCK is also useful for capturing the dynamic and evolving nature of teacher knowledge. Grossman (1990) and later researchers have highlighted how PCK is developed over time through reflection, experience, and engagement with learners. As a conceptual framework, it therefore aligns with interpretive paradigms and methodologies—such as action research, case study, and design-based research—that value contextually grounded, developmental understandings of practice. For example, a study exploring how novice science teachers adapt explanations for abstract phenomena can use PCK to trace how subject-specific knowledge becomes pedagogically meaningful in response to student needs.

Moreover, PCK provides a structured yet flexible framework for studying specific components of teacher knowledge, including knowledge of student misconceptions, curriculum materials, assessment strategies, and instructional representations. This granular approach allows researchers to isolate and analyse discrete but interconnected dimensions of teaching practice (Depaepe, Verschaffel, & Kelchtermans, 2013). It also supports cross-case and comparative studies, as researchers can map how PCK varies across contexts, disciplines, and levels of expertise.

However, using PCK as a research framework requires a critical awareness of its limitations. The concept has been critiqued for lacking conceptual clarity, particularly in distinguishing it from broader categories of teacher knowledge (Kind, 2009). Furthermore, early formulations of PCK have been criticised for privileging cognitive dimensions of teaching while underemphasising sociocultural and relational aspects, such as equity, power, and identity in the classroom (Ladson-Billings, 1995). Researchers adopting PCK must therefore be cautious not to treat it as a neutral or complete model of teaching knowledge but should instead consider expanded or revised models that integrate these critical dimensions (Park & Oliver, 2008).

Despite these critiques, the adaptability and explanatory power of PCK make it an appropriate and valuable conceptual framework for educational research. It supports a nuanced, subject-specific analysis of teaching, while accommodating developmental and contextual variation. In practice, PCK can guide data collection (e.g., through interviews, classroom observations, or teacher reflections), inform analytical categories, and help articulate findings in ways that are both theoretically rich and practically relevant. Its central concern with how teachers make content learnable makes it especially well-suited to research that aims to improve instructional practice and teacher education.

In conclusion, Pedagogical Content Knowledge provides a robust, practice-sensitive framework for educational research. It offers both conceptual depth and methodological versatility, enabling researchers to explore the richness of teacher knowledge in context. While not without limitations, when critically applied and situated within broader sociocultural understandings of teaching, PCK remains a powerful tool for examining and enhancing the complex work of educators.

References

Ball, D. L., Thames, M. H., & Phelps, G. (2008). Content Knowledge for Teaching: What Makes It Special? Journal of Teacher Education, 59(5), 389–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022487108324554

Grossman, P. L. (1990). The Making of a Teacher: Teacher Knowledge and Teacher Education. Teachers College Press.

Kind, V. (2009). Pedagogical content knowledge in science education: Perspectives and potential for progress. Studies in Science Education, 45(2), 169–204. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057260903142285

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a Theory of Culturally Relevant Pedagogy. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 465–491. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312032003465

Park, S., & Oliver, J. S. (2008). Revisiting the conceptualisation of pedagogical content knowledge (PCK): PCK as a conceptual tool to understand teachers as professionals. Research in Science Education, 38(3), 261–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11165-007-9049-6

Shulman, L. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X015002004

PLANNED ENACTED EXPERIENCED

Using the 'Planned, Enacted and Experienced' Model of Pedagogy as a Conceptual Framework for Educational Intervention Research

Understanding the complexity of teaching and learning within educational interventions requires conceptual frameworks that move beyond linear or technocratic models of pedagogy. The model of pedagogy as planned, enacted and experienced, developed by Nind, Curtin, and Hall (2016), offers a nuanced and multi-dimensional framework that is especially well-suited for researching educational interventions. It enables researchers to interrogate the often-misaligned perspectives of those who design pedagogy, those who deliver it, and those who experience it as learners.

At its core, this model conceptualises pedagogy as a tripartite process involving the intentions of educators (planned), the actions and adaptations that occur in practice (enacted), and the meanings and effects as perceived by learners (experienced). This distinction is vital in intervention research, where a key concern is often the fidelity and effectivenessof implementation, as well as the authentic impact on learners (Evans, 2020). Using this model allows for an exploration of how pedagogical intentions are translated into action and how they are subsequently received, negotiated, or even resisted by learners in context.

From a critical standpoint, one of the strengths of this model lies in its ability to challenge assumptions of alignment and coherence within pedagogical design. In intervention studies, researchers often assume that what is planned is what is taught, and that what is taught is what is learned. The planned-enacted-experienced framework explicitly problematises this assumption, encouraging a more rigorous investigation of where and why discrepancies occur. As Nind et al. (2016) argue, pedagogical success or failure cannot be fully understood unless the experiences of all actors within the pedagogical encounter are taken into account.

Moreover, this model accommodates complexity, contingency, and context—features that are often overlooked in positivist intervention research. For example, in classroom-based interventions, enacted pedagogy is rarely a straightforward execution of the plan. It is mediated by teachers' interpretations, classroom dynamics, institutional constraints, and learner responses (Biesta, 2010). Similarly, learner experience is shaped not only by the content or delivery of the intervention, but by prior knowledge, identity, motivation, and cultural factors (Florian & Black-Hawkins, 2011). The tripartite model enables a systematic inquiry into how these factors influence the transformation of pedagogical aims into lived realities.

Another important contribution of this model is its epistemological compatibility with mixed methods and participatory research approaches. Its structure lends itself well to triangulation—allowing researchers to collect and analyse data from planning documents and interviews (planned), classroom observations (enacted), and learner reflections or focus groups (experienced). Furthermore, the experienced dimension provides space for learner voice, which is particularly significant in inclusive and emancipatory research paradigms that seek to reposition learners as active agents rather than passive recipients (Cook-Sather, 2006).

However, while the model’s comprehensiveness is a strength, it may also present practical challenges. Capturing all three dimensions with depth and rigour can be methodologically demanding, particularly in large-scale studies or resource-constrained settings. There is also a risk of treating the three components as separate rather than interdependent; researchers must remain critically attuned to the dynamic interplay between planning, enactment, and experience rather than treating them as discrete categories.

In conclusion, the model of pedagogy as planned, enacted, and experienced offers a robust and critically informed framework for educational research into interventions. It enables researchers to move beyond simplistic input-output models and to engage meaningfully with the complexities of pedagogical design, implementation, and reception. By foregrounding the perspectives of both teachers and learners, and by acknowledging the socio-cultural contexts in which pedagogy unfolds, the model supports a more holistic and socially responsive form of educational inquiry.

References

Biesta, G. (2010). Good education in an age of measurement: Ethics, politics, democracy. Routledge.

Cook-Sather, A. (2006). Sound, presence, and power: “Student voice” in educational research and reform. Curriculum Inquiry, 36(4), 359–390. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-873X.2006.00363.x

Evans, C. (2020). What is effective pedagogy? A review of evidence. British Educational Research Journal, 46(6), 1180–1200. https://doi.org/10.1002/berj.3658

Florian, L., & Black-Hawkins, K. (2011). Exploring inclusive pedagogy. British Educational Research Journal, 37(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1080/01411926.2010.501096

Nind, M., Curtin, A., & Hall, K. (2016). Researching pedagogy: An overview and theoretical grounding. In M. Nind, J. Curtin, & K. Hall (Eds.), Research methods for pedagogy (pp. 1–16). Bloomsbury Academic.

Social model and inclusive design

Framing Digital Accessibility Education through the Social Model of Disability and Inclusive Design: A Conceptual Rationale

Developing awareness of digital accessibility in schools requires educational interventions that challenge prevailing assumptions about disability and technology. In this context, the social model of disability (Oliver, 1990) and the principles of inclusive design (Newell & Gregor, 2000) offer powerful and mutually reinforcing conceptual frameworks for underpinning educational research. Together, they provide a critical lens through which to interrogate the cultural, structural, and technological barriers that shape learners’ understandings of disability and accessibility in the digital realm.

The social model of disability shifts the focus from individual impairments to the disabling barriers imposed by society. This model challenges the dominant medical paradigm which locates the “problem” of disability within the individual, and instead reframes disability as the result of inaccessible environments, exclusionary practices, and discriminatory attitudes (Shakespeare, 2006). When applied to digital contexts, the social model compels educators and learners to see inaccessible digital content not as a neutral or inevitable condition, but as a product of ableist design and policy decisions (Ellcessor, 2016). As such, the model provides a critical foundation for a research study aiming to evaluate or develop educational interventions that promote digital accessibility awareness. It enables a shift from teaching digital accessibility as a technical compliance issue toward framing it as a matter of social justice, equity, and rights (Hosking, 2008).

Moreover, the social model’s critical stance aligns well with the pedagogical aims of transformative education (Mezirow, 2000), which seeks to challenge learners’ assumptions and foster emancipatory understandings. A research study using this model can therefore examine not just whether students gain knowledge of digital accessibility standards (e.g. WCAG), but whether they develop critical awareness of the socio-political dimensions of accessibility and their own role in promoting inclusion.

Complementing this, the framework of inclusive design (also referred to as universal design or design for all) provides a practical and ethically grounded orientation to accessibility in digital and educational contexts. Inclusive design recognises diversity and variability as baseline conditions of human experience, and thus advocates for designing systems, tools, and environments that accommodate a wide range of users from the outset (Centre for Excellence in Universal Design, 2020). In contrast to retrofitting accommodations for disabled users, inclusive design promotes proactive, flexible, and user-informed approaches to design. This framework is especially appropriate for research on digital accessibility education, as it encourages students to think beyond legal compliance or “special needs,” and to adopt design mindsets that value equity, usability, and participation (Burgstahler, 2015).

Critically, inclusive design as a pedagogical framework also encourages participatory and learner-centred teaching approaches. In an educational intervention, this could mean involving students in co-design activities, empathy exercises, or critical evaluation of digital interfaces from multiple user perspectives. For research purposes, the framework supports inquiry into how such pedagogical strategies affect students’ understanding of accessibility, their attitudes toward disability, and their capacity for ethical digital citizenship (Seale, 2013).

However, the adoption of these frameworks is not without challenges. The social model has been critiqued for underemphasising the embodied and medical realities of disability (Shakespeare, 2006), and its application in school settings may require careful mediation to avoid reductive interpretations. Similarly, inclusive design can risk being diluted into superficial design checklists if not grounded in meaningful engagement with disabled users and critical reflection (Pritchard, 2020). As such, researchers using these frameworks must remain critically reflexive, ensuring that the intervention and its evaluation attend to the complex interplay of impairment, design, and sociocultural context.

In conclusion, the social model of disability and inclusive design offer robust, ethically grounded, and critically engaged conceptual frameworks for educational research into digital accessibility awareness. They enable researchers to move beyond compliance-based approaches and to frame accessibility as a question of pedagogical, technological, and social transformation. By doing so, they support research that is not only evaluative but also transformative—seeking to change how digital accessibility is understood, taught, and embedded within the culture of schooling.

References

Burgstahler, S. (2015). Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice (2nd ed.). Harvard Education Press.

Centre for Excellence in Universal Design. (2020). What is Universal Design? National Disability Authority. http://universaldesign.ie

Ellcessor, E. (2016). Restricted Access: Media, Disability, and the Politics of Participation. NYU Press.

Hosking, D. L. (2008). Critical disability theory. Disability Studies Quarterly, 29(4). https://doi.org/10.18061/dsq.v29i4.1052

Mezirow, J. (2000). Learning as Transformation: Critical Perspectives on a Theory in Progress. Jossey-Bass.

Newell, A. F., & Gregor, P. (2000). User sensitive inclusive design—In search of a new paradigm. Proceedings on CUU '00: First ACM Conference on Universal Usability, 39–44. https://doi.org/10.1145/355460.355470

Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan.

Pritchard, E. (2020). Inclusive design and the misuses of empathy. Journal of Design History, 33(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1093/jdh/epz040

Seale, J. (2013). When digital capital is not enough: reconsidering the digital lives of disabled university students. Learning, Media and Technology, 38(3), 256–269. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2012.670644

Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability Rights and Wrongs. Routledge.

Social model version 2

Conceptual Frameworks

Introduction

This chapter outlines the conceptual framework that underpins this study, which investigates an educational intervention designed to develop digital accessibility awareness among school-aged learners. The research is informed by two interrelated frameworks: the social model of disability (Oliver, 1990) and the principles of inclusive design (Newell & Gregor, 2000). Together, these frameworks provide a critical lens through which to analyse the pedagogical, technological, and sociocultural dimensions of digital accessibility, and they guide the design, implementation, and evaluation of the intervention.

1. The Social Model of Disability

The social model of disability represents a paradigmatic shift from medical and deficit-based models of disability, which locate the ‘problem’ of disability within the individual, towards an understanding of disability as a product of social and environmental barriers (Oliver, 1990; Barnes & Mercer, 2004). In this model, disability is not synonymous with impairment, but emerges when societal structures fail to accommodate the full range of human diversity.

Applying this model within an educational context has significant implications. It challenges the notion that digital accessibility is a technical or peripheral concern, instead framing it as a matter of equity and justice (Shakespeare, 2006). For this research, the social model functions as a foundational lens for analysing how digital exclusion is reproduced or challenged in educational settings. It positions digital inaccessibility not as a result of individual learner deficits, but as a systemic issue shaped by design decisions, normative assumptions about ability, and broader cultural attitudes toward disability.

Furthermore, the social model provides a basis for examining how accessibility education can cultivate critical digital literacy—enabling students to recognise ableist assumptions embedded in technology and to engage in more inclusive design practices. In this sense, the model informs both the aims of the intervention and the analytical categories used to interpret its outcomes.

2. Inclusive Design as a Pedagogical and Analytical Framework

While the social model provides a critical theoretical foundation, inclusive design (sometimes referred to as universal design or design for all) offers a complementary and operational framework. Inclusive design is grounded in the premise that diversity, including disability, should be central to the design of environments, technologies, and systems (Newell & Gregor, 2000; Burgstahler, 2015). Rather than adding accessibility features retroactively, inclusive design advocates for proactive, flexible, and user-informed approaches that anticipate and embrace variability.

In the context of this study, inclusive design serves both a pedagogical and analytical function. Pedagogically, it shapes the intervention’s content and learning activities, which aim to move students beyond compliance-based understandings of accessibility (e.g., meeting WCAG standards) toward design thinking approaches that prioritise empathy, user experience, and ethical responsibility (Pritchard, 2020). Analytically, inclusive design provides a vocabulary and evaluative lens for assessing students’ evolving understandings of accessibility, as well as the design processes they engage in during the intervention.

Importantly, inclusive design aligns with constructivist and participatory pedagogies. It promotes learner agency by encouraging students to take the perspectives of diverse users, engage in iterative problem-solving, and co-create solutions. These principles support the study’s commitment to inclusive education and help address critiques that accessibility is often taught as an abstract or technical subject, disconnected from real-world concerns and lived experiences (Seale, 2013).

3. Interrelationship Between the Frameworks

While analytically distinct, the social model of disability and inclusive design are conceptually interrelated and mutually reinforcing. The social model provides the critical rationale for why accessibility matters and frames exclusion as a structural problem, while inclusive design offers practical strategies for creating more accessible and inclusive digital spaces. Together, they support a view of digital accessibility as a dynamic intersection of values, practices, and power relations, rather than a set of fixed standards or checklists.

This dual-framework approach enables the research to examine how accessibility education can shift students' understanding from seeing accessibility as a compliance task to engaging with it as a creative, ethical, and socially situated practice. Furthermore, it allows for a more nuanced analysis of the intervention’s impact, not only in terms of knowledge acquisition but also in terms of learners’ attitudes, values, and capacities to act as inclusive digital citizens.

4. Methodological Implications

These frameworks have significant methodological implications. The social model necessitates a research approach that attends to learner experience, power relations, and the sociocultural contexts of the school environment. It justifies the use of qualitative methods, such as interviews and focus groups, that prioritise learner voice and interpretation (Thomas, 2007). Likewise, inclusive design supports participatory and design-based research methodologies, in which learners are positioned not as passive recipients of knowledge but as active contributors to the co-construction of meaning and solutions (Barab & Squire, 2004).

By grounding the research in these frameworks, the study maintains a critical commitment to inclusion, agency, and justice, aligning the theoretical foundations with the practical and ethical goals of the intervention.

Conclusion

This chapter has argued for the adoption of the social model of disability and inclusive design as the dual conceptual framework underpinning this study. These frameworks are particularly well-suited for investigating an educational intervention focused on digital accessibility awareness, as they offer both critical insight and practical direction. They enable the research to challenge dominant deficit-based narratives, foreground learner agency, and investigate how inclusive pedagogies can support the development of critical digital literacies. In doing so, the frameworks contribute to a broader vision of education as a space for transformation, participation, and social justice.

References

Barab, S. A., & Squire, K. (2004). Design-based research: Putting a stake in the ground. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327809jls1301_1

Barnes, C., & Mercer, G. (2004). Implementing the Social Model of Disability: Theory and Research. Leeds: The Disability Press.

Burgstahler, S. (2015). Universal Design in Higher Education: From Principles to Practice (2nd ed.). Harvard Education Press.

Oliver, M. (1990). The Politics of Disablement. Macmillan.

Pritchard, E. (2020). Inclusive design and the misuses of empathy. Journal of Design History, 33(2), 163–176. https://doi.org/10.1093/jdh/epz040

Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability Rights and Wrongs. Routledge.

Thomas, G. (2007). Education and Theory: Strangers in Paradigms. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

Search This Blog

Time for digital inclusion at scale